Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I haven't posted in eons, and I don't really have any good reason why, but today was the perfect day to do so. I coined a phrase; To "Firefly" something, is to cancel a great TV show, too soon, for a bullshit reason, before it ever got a chance to get the credit and recognition it deserves.
This came about in a conversation having to do with the show Legend of The Seeker. I happen to think its a fantastic fantasy TV show. The conversation was about how both my friend and I hope the show gets a chance at a few more seasons. I said, "I hope it doesn't get fiereflied". This is in regards to a great SciFi show of the same name. It was a legitimately good sci fi show, and it got canceled way too early. It was on Fox. Fox has a habit of crapping out on potentially intriguing shows. Firefly, Sarah Conner Chronicles, and several others.
So, you can say that Sarah Conner Chronicles got "fireflied". Babylon 5 sort of got Fireflied, because it had 5 seasons, but they just crapped out on the ending.
Every year around this jolly holiday season the Christmas brigade comes out of the woodworks to remind us all that the month of December is reserved for Christ.We are begged by these people to keep Christ in Christmas and never to forget the meaning of the yuletide season.Most importantly we are urged not to bend to liberal atheists who want to destroy Christmas by removing all traces of it from the public sphere.
Meanwhile, in the real world, those of us who do not celebrate Christmas are reminded just how blind many religionists can be.Most people who celebrate the birth of Christ either choose to ignore or are just plain ignorant of the facts about their favorite holiday.Rather than the winter being a time to celebrate the birth of their human-god-ghost, it is in fact a purely pagan celebration.Anyone ever seen a pine tree grow in the desert?The misunderstanding of the origins of Christmas is just another piece of evidence to show how religion can distort and reshape reality in the minds of believers.
This time of year Christians celebrate the birth of their human-god-ghost; a striking Anglo-looking man with long, wispy hair.The fact is that Jesus Christ, if he even existed, was not a white guy.Jesus Christ was a Jew.Christians today would have trouble picking Jesus out of a lineup with Arabs on either side of him.His hair would have been curly and dense, and his complexion would have been much darker than medieval interpretations suggest.
What we know today as Christmas is not actually Christian in origin.It is a pagan celebration of winter, absorbed and distorted by the church in order to make the “transition” from pagan to Christian more palatable for “converts”.Simply put, people are more willing to believe whatever you want when what you are asking them to believe resembles the beliefs they already hold.There is a reason many saints can be traced back to pagan deities.Likewise, many island cultures have adopted Christianity over time only to retain their spirits and gods in the form of saints.
A perfect example of this Christian absorption of more “primitive” religions is the coveted symbolic Christmas tree.As I mentioned earlier any Christian would be hard pressed to pinpoint the exact location of a pine forest on a map of the Middle East.If Christmas is about celebrating the birth of Christ why then is the most cherished symbol a borrowed pagan tradition?No self respecting Christian would dare deny that Christ was from the Middle East, so how do they reconcile the elevating of the pine tree to such prominent status in their celebration of Jesus, an Arab-looking Jew from the desert?
Faith of course.
The winter season should be about family, friends, and humanity, if it needs to be about anything at all.Even if they are all different in scope and practice nearly all the popular religions celebrate something this time of year.But Christians have claimed all the days below 45° as their property.How ironic that the time of year so devoted to materialism and greed be claimed by the most greedy, malevolent force in human history.
I am not against the celebration of Christmas.What I am against is the delusional notion that as soon as the temperature plummets we must all recognize Christmas as the focal point of the season.This time of year is only Christmastime to Christians.The only reason I point out the hypocrisy of their Christmas beliefs is as some form of counter attack against the war on non-Christmas celebrators.The more brainwashed religionists say there is a war on Christmas.They believe that liberal, atheist forces are trying to remove Christmas from its rightful place in the public sphere as the national holiday.And perhaps it is to some extent, the extent that the complete and utter materialism pervading Christmas is right in line with American values.
So during the holidays if you’re Christian go ahead and wish people a Merry Christmas.Only a fool would be offended by this.No reasonable person should expect someone who celebrates a particular holiday to sterilize their greetings to others for the sake of averting offense.To the believer of any religion the holiday season takes on the colors of their beliefs, as it should.But I wonder how some Christians would react if a Jewish person were to wish them a Happy Chanukah.I wonder how many would be sure to correct the mistaken assumption right away.It is interesting that Christians are the only group who seem wish their holiday onto others as standard practice.You never see a Jew wish someone they aren’t certain is a Jew happy Chanukah, or someone wish another person they’ve just met a happy Kwanza, or Ramadan.It makes you wonder…
Coca-Cola, the Hess truck, the movie A Christmas Story, and getting off school/work have made it seem like Christmas is an American holiday. And while Christianity is still the most prevelant religion in America, it is not the national religion. Christmas is not the national holiday. Christians can't have it both ways. Either Christmas is about celebrating the birth of Christ or it is a materialistic invention of the Coca-Cola Corporation. If it truly is about Jesus then it has no place in the public sphere.
The winter is a holiday season for everyone—unless you don’t celebrate any holidays.So next time someone wishes you a happy holidays, if you’re a Christian, don’t get offended.It’s a bit hypocritical!
One of the arguments the faithful offer in favor of religion is that organized religion provides selfless charitable works.It is claimed that religion, at its core, exists to help people.While on a certain level this may be true there always seem to be examples where the adherence to doctrine and strict requirements of faith demand selfishness, closed-mindedness, and an abandonment of charity and compassion for the sake of “belief”.
The Catholic Church especially loves to purport its “mission” to help the poor and downtrodden as its primary objective, along side spreading the loving word of Jesus Christ of course.But then how do they reconcile the quick and easy abandonment of their supposed core principles the first instant they are asked to make compromises?
Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would…have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.
If the bill passes religious institutions will not be allowed to practice their usual faith-based discrimination.Instead they will be required to put aside their “belief” in the name of doing good works and helping people, a task that seems to be completely beyond the Church’s abilities.It’s about time someone force religious institutions to show some dignity.
"If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."
The above reaction is more than enough to highlight the inherent hate and inhumanness of the Church.Nobody is asking religious people to abandon their core beliefs, but if you can’t put aside those beliefs and just do something nice for someone then you’re pretty well confirming all the negative things said about religion.Is the church that closed-minded that they are willing to refuse to act like human beings on principle?
After the vote, the archdiocese sent out a statement accusing the council of ignoring the right of religious freedom. Gibbs said Wednesday that…religious groups that receive city funds would be required to give same-sex couples medical benefits, open adoptions to same-sex couples and rent a church hall to a support group for lesbian couples.
How is it that the Catholic Church can make the claim that anyone else is fighting to stifle freedom when the Church still claims homosexuality is wrong, contraceptives are wrong, and that a woman doesn’t have the right to her own body?As grossly intolerant a group as the Catholic Church is maybe they shouldn’t be throwing stones in their opulent stained-glass house.
Who knew a xenophobic, racist, sexist, intolerant fraud of an organization like the Catholic Church would be so sensitive about a perceived infringement on their religious freedom.It’s a shame they don’t afford any other group the same tolerance they demand be offered to themselves.A bit hypocritical don’t you think?Not shocking, but fascinating nonetheless.
If, as reported the bill that finds its way to the senate floor includes an opt-out public option, what will that mean for states that actually choose to opt-out? What happens when, hypothetically speaking, once the bill passes there are states that decide not to offer the plan to their residents? While gauging true public support for any public option is unreliable at best—anything cable news outlets say has to be taken with a grain of organic sea salt—imagine what might transpire when residents of a state that has opted out voice anger at not being offered the choice.
There are opponents of any public option in ever state, in ever demographic, and in every corner of the country, but what happens when those who would like to have the option never get it because their state government wants to play politics? I think an opt-out option is a good idea for one reason only; it will show exactly how the majority of Americans feel about having, or not having the option to enlist in a government run program. Just imagine if the program works like a charm. Think of how all the states that chose not to offer the plan to their residents will look. If the plan fails that’s one thing, but imagine the social unrest that will come about when people in Texas are not able to obtain the exact same health care that people in New Jersey are getting, but could if their state decided to offer it?
Will opting out be a purely political move? Will Republican-run states choose not to offer the option just to spite the Democrats? What will happen if their political decision blows up in their face? It will at least be interesting to see which states do in fact opt-out. Could we see residents of one state moving to other states in some sort of mass exodus? Even in states with overwhelming support for one party or the other there will be a segment of the population that cries out at the injustice of not being offered the same plan as other Americans enjoy.
The opt-out concession is at best a weak compromise to hopefully get some sort of public option through the senate. If anything the democrats have shown they are incapable of standing up for what they believe in as soon as people start calling them names and things get difficult. Would President Obama dare reject a bill passed through the senate that didn't have a full public option? It will be quite interesting to see how this all plays out, but I’ll say one thing, the proverbial feces is going to hit the fan the first time a state chooses to opt-out of a public health care plan and some Americans cannot get the same health care their neighbors fifteen minutes away can.
For those of us who comprehend the logic that equal rights encompass all people of any persuasion where their rights don’t infringe upon the rights of others, repealing DADT would be a monumental step forward for our country. And for those of us who can’t see passed their own blind hatred and ignorance it could just mean the end of the world. But if President Obama keeps his promise to repeal this antiquated, embarrassing practice, America could take at least one step in the right direction under his watch.
The problem is that the Right will use this as “proof” that Obama is trying his dandiest to destroy the fabric of America, as they see it. Equal rights have always been a bit of a quagmire for those who align themselves with hardliner religionists, and yes, that does include the Republican Party. The idea that non-whites, women, or any non-storybook fantasy land Normal Rockwell people are entitled to the same rights as white Christian men is something too horrible to contemplate for many people. For them, the idea that same-sex couples deserve the same rights as everyone else is unyielding proof that America is becoming Satan’s playground and that Barrack Obama is the Dark Lord’s errand boy. Innuendo intended.
Luckily there are those who have more than half a brain and see the championing of modern day equal rights as a proud endeavor for a socially backwards country to pursue. While Republicans would no doubt try to push the repealing of DADT either as trivial or monstrously horrific—it will be fun to see which one they decide—they will never give credit to the president for taking a stand against ignorance and Dark Age thinking. And even if Obama himself does not believe same-sex couples should have the right to marry—an interesting hypocrisy if he does repeal DADT—trying to bring more social equality to these people is not something to brush under the rug. It would make quite a loud statement to finally declare that if there are men and women willing to die for our country we should not ridicule them because they cannot help from which sex they find true love.
Of course the Republicans will probably counter this move by saying we should expect the repeal to allow admitted child molesters to become generals, but this will only serve to clarify the crazies amongst their base and further define the Republican part and its most extreme supporters as loons and fools. Personally I’m excited to see how this plays out.
Would a future Republican president dare repeal the repeal?
If President Obama does repeal this idiotic, foolish practice—do people really think a soldier will start dry-humping a fellow soldier during a firefight?—it would be his first domestic victory. It would, and should go down as a monumental shift in American social attitudes. The irony of America’s first black president championing gay rights would be something special to behold. Of course if he never goes the extra step to defend their right to marry it would greatly sour his support. But at least it would be a step in the right direction, not a step off the cliff as his detractors will no doubt claim. I, for one, would be proud of my country, and my president.